logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.01.06 2014가합57736
건물명도, 토지인도 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. The “land” list as indicated in the annex 2 list is indicated in the same list of land.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendant is obliged to remove each of the above buildings, deliver each occupied land, and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from May 12, 201 to May 12, 201 for each occupied land, as the Plaintiff occupied each building listed in the separate sheet No. 2 in the separate sheet No. 3 (hereinafter “each of the buildings of this case”) or each land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 in the separate sheet No. 3 (hereinafter “each of the buildings of this case”) without any legal cause on the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 list No. 1 (hereinafter “No. 1 to 7”) owned by the Plaintiff.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 15 (including paper numbers), the results of the survey and appraisal by appraiser C, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff is the owner of the share of 1, 2, 4, and 6 from May 12, 201 to May 12, 201, the share of 4306/49575 of the land No. 3, the share of 165/231 of the land No. 7, and the fact that the defendant owned each of the buildings of this case on each of the land of this case or loaded various raw materials, wastes, etc. after the above time.

Furthermore, according to the health team, appraiser D’s appraisal result, and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the amount of unjust enrichment, the determination unit price and expected interest rate of each land as of the base point of time listed in [Attachment 3] Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 can be recognized as mentioned below.

(B) The Defendant asserts to the effect that, without reasonable grounds, the outcome of the above appraisal of rent is no more reliable than the appraisal of the adjoining land conducted in a separate case, and there is no evidence supporting this conclusion. Therefore, the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, removes each of the buildings of this case, delivers each of the above possessed land to the Plaintiff, and deliver each of the above possessed land to the Plaintiff, and the unit price and unit price of the above determination as to each of the possessed land.

arrow